Experience makes Clinton better choice in primary

[BayGBM]

Experience makes Clinton better choice in primary

In this extraordinary election year, Indiana's Democratic voters have been presented with an extraordinary opportunity: Choose for their party's presidential nominee between a gifted senator from Illinois who has enthused millions of new voters and an equally talented senator from New York with years of high-level experience.

It's been difficult for voters in other states to decide a clear favorite between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. It's also a difficult choice for The Star's Editorial Board, which recently questioned each candidate in person about key issues facing the nation.

Obama offers an attractive vision for the way things could be. He speaks eloquently of hope and change. He connects with voters, many who formerly felt disenfranchised, on a level few political leaders have attained.

Clinton offers a clear-eyed view of the way things are. She offers nuanced positions on how to address the war in Iraq, trade with China and economic expansion. Her depth of knowledge is remarkable.

As impressive as Obama appears, he is still in his first term in the U.S. Senate, and only four years ago was serving as an Illinois state senator. His inexperience in high office is a liability.

Clinton, in contrast, is well prepared for the rigors of the White House. She is tough, experienced and realistic about what can and cannot be accomplished on the world stage.

Clinton regrettably has pandered more to voters, particularly on gas prices, than Obama. Both have taken stands on free trade that give in to protectionism.

Clinton also was an integral part of her husband's political machine, which earned a reputation for flattening opponents. That factor understandably gives many voters pause about whether another Clinton should serve as president.

Yet, one thing is clear: The next commander in chief will take office at a time of extraordinary risk for this nation, both at home and abroad. The challenges -- including those posed by a sagging economy, rising energy and food costs, the gap in health care, wars in two countries and threats from Iran -- are complex.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton is the better choice, based on her experience and grasp of major issues, to confront those challenges. She earns The Star's endorsement in Tuesday's primary.


http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080502/OPINION08/805020400/1291/OPINION08
 

[w8tlftr]

What experience?

She's serving her second term as a New York senator.

That's sufficient experience to be POTUS?

[240 is Back]

What experience?

She's serving her second term as a New York senator.

That's sufficient experience to be POTUS?

Experience matters not.

Cheney has more experience than ANYONE in DC.

Do you like the job he has done?

[Benny B]

The number of years spent in Washington is not an accurate barometer of whether you'd make a good president. In fact, I'd prefer someone with less years so that we can expect greater change and not politics as usual.

[w8tlftr]

Experience matters not.

Cheney has more experience than ANYONE in DC.

Do you like the job he has done?

No, Rob, I don't.... my fault for not clearly making my point.

She's campaigning on experience she really doesn't have.

[240 is Back]

She has 'exposure'.

More than Obama, but less than a VP would have.

[BayGBM]

Experience matters not.

Cheney has more experience than ANYONE in DC.

Do you like the job he has done?

Wrong.

Having a deep knowledge of how the federal government works (and doesn’t work), that is to say “experience” is critically important to achieving your aims in Washington.

Cheney was extremely successful in advancing his agenda; his experience made this possible.  You or I may disagree with his agenda or its outcomes, but in terms of the policies he wanted to advance, he was very successful and almost everyone in Washington would acknowledge this.  He famously opined that “deficits don’t matter” and his agenda—successfully executed—shows that.

Unfortunately, a lot of voters (and newcomers like Obama) are hopelessly naďve about the way Washington works.  They really do believe an outsider with little or no experience can come into town and “change Washington.”  In fact, most politicians love to run against Washington using that very line.  Mitt Romney did it.  Remember all his talk about Washington being “broken” and he was going to fix it?  The reality is that modern Washington is a HUGE apparatus with many vested interests committed to the status quo and one has to have experience to successfully navigate it.

I believe Obama is very well intentioned, but his rhetoric suggests he has a lot to learn about Washington and while he is learning it on the job his agenda will suffer.  One of the things I like about Hillary is that she has been through the ringer; her opponents literally tried to destroy her; she has survived it all and it still committed to fighting for the issues that inspired her a generation ago.  She and Bill have a long history of winning and losing and this history/experience makes them well poised to step into the mess that Bush has created and start to clean it up.

Obama has a lot of quiet enemies—even in his own party—who are just waiting to undermine him at the first real opportunity.  No one will say it publicly, but many people on the Hill resent his ambition specifically because he has not yet paid his dues.  He talks alot about "bringing people together," but Hillary has literally reached out to Republicans, including former bitter enemies to advance mutual interests during her years in the Senate.

Obama was in the Senate for two years before he officially decided to seek the Presidency.  In other words, this is not someone who really wanted to be in the Senate and accomplish anything there.  For him, the Senate was merely a stepping stone.

I wish the case were otherwise, but Obama would not have a successful presidency;  he does not yet have the experience he needs to navigate Washington.  Cheney had the experience and achieved what he wanted.  Hillary also has the experience and can similarly advance her agenda.

[Benny B]

Bay, as an obvious Billary supporter why don't you state your feelings in my "Who's for Hillary" thread?

Wrong.

Having a deep knowledge of how the federal government works (and doesn’t work), that is to say “experience” is critically important to achieving your aims in Washington.

Cheney was extremely successful in advancing his agenda; his experience made this possible.  You or I may disagree with his agenda or its outcomes, but in terms of the policies he wanted to advance, he was very successful and almost everyone in Washington would acknowledge this.  He famously opined that “deficits don’t matter” and his agenda—successfully executed—shows that.

Unfortunately, a lot of voters (and newcomers like Obama) are hopelessly naďve about the way Washington works.  They really do believe an outsider with little or no experience can come into town and “change Washington.”  In fact, most politicians love to run against Washington using that very line.  Mitt Romney did it.  Remember all his talk about Washington being “broken” and he was going to fix it?  The reality is that modern Washington is a HUGE apparatus with many vested interests committed to the status quo and one has to have experience to successfully navigate it.

I believe Obama is very well intentioned, but his rhetoric suggests he has a lot to learn about Washington and while he is learning it on the job his agenda will suffer.  One of the things I like about Hillary is that she has been through the ringer; her opponents literally tried to destroy her; she has survived it all and it still committed to fighting for the issues that inspired her a generation ago.  She and Bill have a long history of winning and losing and this history/experience makes them well poised to step into the mess that Bush has created and start to clean it up.

Obama has a lot of quiet enemies—even in his own party—who are just waiting to undermine him at the first real opportunity.  No one will say it publicly, but many people on the Hill resent his ambition specifically because he has not yet paid his dues.  He talks alot about "bringing people together," but Hillary has literally reached out to Republicans, including former bitter enemies to advance mutual interests during her years in the Senate.

Obama was in the Senate for two years before he officially decided to seek the Presidency.  In other words, this is not someone who really wanted to be in the Senate and accomplish anything there.  For him, the Senate was merely a stepping stone.

I wish the case were otherwise, but Obama would not have a successful presidency.  He does not yet have the experience he needs to navigate Washington.  Cheney had the experience and achieved what he wanted.  Hillary has the experience and can similarly advance her agenda.

[calmus]

Yes, Hillary has truly been through the "ringer," whatever that is.    Learn how to spell before you try to get all "intellectual" on us. 

All BS.  Obama's doing just fine with the vested interests and with the general populace. It's why his campaign has raised more money and has gotten more endorsements as it's rolled along. All Clinton knows to do is invoke the "us against them" rhetoric of generations past (like yours, Bay). 

[Decker]

What experience?

She's serving her second term as a New York senator.

That's sufficient experience to be POTUS?

Exactly.

[Decker]

Experience matters not.

Cheney has more experience than ANYONE in DC.

Do you like the job he has done?

I agree.  Let's shitcan all these tangential ways of analyzing the aptness of candidates.  Electability, experience, patriotism, honesty, etc should all be shitcanned.

Why not look at the issues in their platform?

There's a novel approach to choosing a candidate.

[Tre]

Hillary also has the experience and can similarly advance her agenda.

Hillary's only agenda is to get rich and to make everyone pay a little or lot towards her legacy and retirement funds.

How can you possibly support such a thing?

C'mon, man.

[shootfighter1]

"Why not look at the issues in their platform?"

Exactly...thats the main reason I can't vote for Obama even though I like his style.  Look at his website & you'll see his argument is to increase spending & government influence/control on nearly every issue!

I want to put Ron Paul & Obama in a machine that puts em together. 

[BayGBM]

Hillary's only agenda is to get rich and to make everyone pay a little or lot towards her legacy and retirement funds.

How can you possibly support such a thing?

C'mon, man.

She and Bill are now quite wealthy.  If either of them were motivated by money they would have pursued lucrative legal careers following their stint at Yale law school.

Not even their harshest (informed) critics have ever accused the Clintons of a paper chase. 

If you want to hate them for their ideological views fine, but it’s a mistake to project your own motives on them and then hate them for that.  A common mistake in politics.

[Benny B]

If you want to hate them for their ideological views fine, but it’s a mistake to project your own motives on them and then hate them for that.  A common mistake in politics.

Oh, I hate them for a lot more than that, buddy. Especially after watching them run this presidential campaign. 

[Tre]

"Why not look at the issues in their platform?"

Exactly...thats the main reason I can't vote for Obama even though I like his style.  Look at his website & you'll see his argument is to increase spending & government influence/control on nearly every issue!

I want to put Ron Paul & Obama in a machine that puts em together. 

The only reason I'm supporting Obama (in the primaries) is that I do not want Hillary anywhere on the ballot in November.  Even though I'd love to see her get slaughtered (by McCain), it's taking too big a risk to let her get that close to the White House.

Against McCain, the only possible reason I'd have for supporting Obama is that he's not a Washington guy.  

Bay is right about one thing, though - there's no way that one individual alone, not even a President, can change the way Washington works, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be given the chance.

[BayGBM]

The only reason I'm supporting Obama (in the primaries) is that I do not want Hillary anywhere on the ballot in November.  Even though I'd love to see her get slaughtered (by McCain), it's taking too big a risk to let her get that close to the White House.

Against McCain, the only possible reason I'd have for supporting Obama is that he's not a Washington guy.  

Bay is right about one thing, though - there's no way that one individual alone, not even a President, can change the way Washington works, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be given the chance.

Do you think most Obama supporters realize this?  I don't think they do. 

[Tre]

She and Bill are now quite wealthy.  If either of them were motivated by money they would have pursued lucrative legal careers following their stint at Yale law school.

Not even their harshest (informed) critics have ever accused the Clintons of a paper chase. 

If you want to hate them for their ideological views fine, but it’s a mistake to project your own motives on them and then hate them for that.  A common mistake in politics.

You're blind to the facts, bro. 

They're wealthy because they filled their pockets protecting corporate and foreign government interests! 

I have never seen anything to suggest that money and power were not their primary motivations.  What world are you living in?  She moved to New York just so that she could run for President!

Of course they're concerned about their legacy, but they've held national office for too long.  'Political dynasties' are BAD FOR AMERICA - it's time to turn the page and get America moving in a new direction.

[Benny B]

Do you think most Obama supporters realize this?  I don't think they do. 

Uhhh...I think most Obama supporters know the inherent difficulties of changing the way things are done in Washington.   That doesn't mean we should except the same old Washington insiders who have fucked things up in the first place.

A president CAN make a difference in the way things are done. If not, what are you voting for? Why pay attention to presidential politics? Last I checked, Hillary is running on a "I'll change the way things are done in Washington" campaign herself. Its just that I, like most dems, think she is full of shit. The way she has run her campaign proves it, as it is straight out of the Karl Rove playbook.  

[Decker]

...
Bay is right about one thing, though - there's no way that one individual alone, not even a President, can change the way Washington works, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be given the chance.

Yeah but one guy can a hell of an effect on people's lives around the world, the fiscal solvency of the government and the US's reputation.

To wit, one George W. Bush.  His Iraq war has killed tens of thousands of people.  He's doubled the national debt.  The US is pretty much hated by many other countries...and not for our freedoms.

[Tre]

She thinks she's a Republican...another way of Hillary saying, "I'm white, you're not, and that's why I'm going to beat you."

[shootfighter1]

To be fair, the congress bears a lot of responsibility as well.  A president can get little done without congress. 

I think Obama is good intentioned to change things (as are most newer politicians in Washington) but our government is so bogged down with buracracy that most of this discussion on new government/ new hope will fall short.  I can understand the arguement that one must understand the system.  Every so often a candidate comes along running on the change & hope platform, unfortunately our government system doesn't allow for it.

[Benny B]

To be fair, the congress bears a lot of responsibility as well.  A president can get little done without congress. 

I think Obama is good intentioned to change things (as are most newer politicians in Washington) but our government is so bogged down with buracracy that most of this discussion on new government/ new hope will fall short.  I can understand the arguement that one must understand the system.  Every so often a candidate comes along running on the change & hope platform, unfortunately our government system doesn't allow for it.

Such a pessimist you are. 
I know where you're coming from, but I couldn't follow (presidential) politics if I really felt this way.

[BayGBM]

To be fair, the congress bears a lot of responsibility as well.  A president can get little done without congress. 

I think Obama is good intentioned to change things (as are most newer politicians in Washington) but our government is so bogged down with buracracy that most of this discussion on new government/ new hope will fall short.  I can understand the arguement that one must understand the system.  Every so often a candidate comes along running on the change & hope platform, unfortunately our government system doesn't allow for it.

It's not "every so often".  EVERY single politician who is not already a Washington insider runs claiming that they will "change Washington"  "fix Washington" "clean up Washington" and none of them ever do it.  Romney used that same rhetoric, Bush did as well, so did Bill Clinton.  In fact, every politician in my lifetime who was not already in Washington has used some version of that mantra.  Niave voters always fall for it.

I repeat Cheney was able to successfully advance his agenda (for better or worse) because he had a deep knowledge of how the federal government works.  Clinton & McCain have that.  Obama, alas, does not.

[Benny B]

I repeat Cheney was able to successfully advance his agenda (for better or worse) because he had a deep knowledge of how the federal government works.  Clinton & McCain have that.  Obama, alas, does not.

Vote for Hillary if you want, however, this is bullshit factually incorrect.